The Myth of the Good Guy With a Gun

And as soon as someone post "negative" things about guns, people starts comparing to other deadly things as a response.

Worst argument ever....

Move along, other deadly things exist... So end of discussion...

Even though those things are constantly updated to be more safe, like car crashes, where people survive for simple things as seatbelts, airbags, road safety like guardrails or speed limits, and traffic lights.

When it comes to guns...."Don't touch it, we are responsible gun owners"..."We don't need safety"..."Nothing ever happened where i live"...."Everyone should be allowed to own guns, because it's our right, according to 2'nd amendment"..

The problem as it stands now in the US, is unfixable, cause of stubbornness...

Oh, well...

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

Put quite simply, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that more guns = more deaths from guns,

And?
People die from all sorts of things.

Should we ban guns?

Would it solve anything?

Heroin is illegal. You can buy it just about anywhere.

Yes, guns should be banned.
They are nothing more than a device that was invented to kill other humans.

To my knowledge, there is no other "product" on the market, and so freely available that was invented for the sole purpose of killing another human.

Are you missing the point?
No doctor in the US can prescribe heroin, it is totally illegal. Yet it is readily available on the black market. The raw material isn't grown here. Yet it is easily bought, no age restrictions, no tests, no getting a permit.
Guns can be made in a garage or basement.
If you ban them, who enforces the law?
Police.... with GUNS.
Hypocrite.

No, Police in this country are not usually armed.

I'm not missing any point, I'm seeing you back up my assertion that the only evidence gun advocates have is anecdotal, and when that fails they resort to ad hominem attack rather than stick to the topic at hand.

Look at the data in the article (have you even read it? ) then come back and discuss it like a rational human being.

I did not read your piece. My immediate thought was that it would show "statistical evidence" that would "prove" guns in and of themselves kill.

1. Inanimate objects do not kill, they are a tool which people can choose to use or not to use
   
2. statistics (and any other report, for that matter) can be skewed to support an agenda
   
3. Heroin legality and use is very much akin to the idea of banning gun posession, IMHO...
   

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: nullafides
a reply to: budski

Out of curiosity, do you own a gun? Have you? Have you ever discharged a gun?


The people I know with either or both a concealed carry permit or the appropriate permit to open carry are very level headed.

To a one, they have all said that they are held under such a high standard due to this, that they MUST think about their actions more so than when they did not own a gun. The reason being? Because owning a gun opens them to greater legal culpability.

For full disclosure, I do NOT own a gun. I make the conscious choice as an adult not to do so. I do this because I *KNOW* I've been proven time and time again to do stupid sh&t with hand knives which involve stitches on my own person. Given that, I chose not to own a gun for the time being.

I don't own a gun, and wouldn't even if it was legal here.

I am, however, well trained in the use of firearms.

So why worry about gun owners in America?

Your safe with no guns where you are.
Just MYOB.

So what you're saying is that because I don't live there I'm not allowed to have an opinion about guns.

Fairly typical argument that is in truth pretty childish.

originally posted by: nullafides

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: butcherguy

Put quite simply, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that more guns = more deaths from guns,

And?
People die from all sorts of things.

Should we ban guns?

Would it solve anything?

Heroin is illegal. You can buy it just about anywhere.

Yes, guns should be banned.
They are nothing more than a device that was invented to kill other humans.

To my knowledge, there is no other "product" on the market, and so freely available that was invented for the sole purpose of killing another human.

Are you missing the point?
No doctor in the US can prescribe heroin, it is totally illegal. Yet it is readily available on the black market. The raw material isn't grown here. Yet it is easily bought, no age restrictions, no tests, no getting a permit.
Guns can be made in a garage or basement.
If you ban them, who enforces the law?
Police.... with GUNS.
Hypocrite.

No, Police in this country are not usually armed.

I'm not missing any point, I'm seeing you back up my assertion that the only evidence gun advocates have is anecdotal, and when that fails they resort to ad hominem attack rather than stick to the topic at hand.

Look at the data in the article (have you even read it? ) then come back and discuss it like a rational human being.

I did not read your piece. My immediate thought was that it would show "statistical evidence" that would "prove" guns in and of themselves kill.

1. Inanimate objects do not kill, they are a tool which people can choose to use or not to use
   
2. statistics (and any other report, for that matter) can be skewed to support an agenda
   
3. Heroin legality and use is very much akin to the idea of banning gun posession, IMHO...
   

What an inane argument, coming completely from a position of ignorance.

Get back to me when you've read the article and have proper rebuttals rather than this nonsense.

originally posted by: Mianeye
And as soon as someone post "negative" things about guns, people starts comparing to other deadly things as a response.

Worst argument ever....

Move along, other deadly things exist... So end of discussion...

Even though those things are constantly updated to be more safe, like car crashes, where people survive for simple things as seatbelts, airbags, road safety like guardrails or speed limits, and traffic lights.

When it comes to guns...."Don't touch it, we are responsible gun owners"..."We don't need safety"..."Nothing ever happened where i live"...."Everyone should be allowed to own guns, because it's our right, according to 2'nd amendment"..

The problem as it stands now in the US, is unfixable, cause of stubbornness...

Oh, well...

I don't think those stats are meant to shut down the gun debate, just to put it in perspective. Which I think is something this debate sorely needs. It seems that most of the time those that are "anti-gun" seem to drastically overstate(or use sources that overstate) the severity of the situation.

a reply to: eriktheawful

What I found funny is that you were accused of being "anecdotal"...

When clearly it was actually your testimony...

Big difference.



How would those "statistics" look if more people like yourself or your community was included in these "statistics"???




Even funnier is the "they're pushing fear to sell guns" when all they're doing is "pushing fear to ban guns"...



Hypocrisy?

Irony?

Probably the former... They know what they're doing.

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Punisher75

But, but, but..................GUNS!!!

LOL Guns Indeed.

You know the irony of the whole thing is the purpose of the 2nd is to give us a way to protect us from our government should it get out of hand.

I am still trying to figure out the strategy that some have that would say "Let your opponent dictate what you can and cannot bring to the battlefield."

For some reason I am thinking they are not West Point Graduates.
Absolute Lunacy. LOL

originally posted by: Shamrock6
How's that knife ban working out in the UK?

Oh, wait....

This guy doesn't speak for the UK!


A closer group to compare people from around the World who want to ban American Guns is the hippies.

originally posted by: budski

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: budski

Oh I know what it means.

It's something that someone can use to show anything they want.

What I want you to show me is your proof that guns were only made to kill humans.

Please. Let us see your documented evidence that the first guns were made just for that, and nothing else.

That all guns were never intended to be used for anything else but killing humans.

The first guns (as we know them today) were smooth bore, and used an early form of black powder.
They were incredibly inaccurate and used only as volley fire against an enemy position.

I'm waiting to see someone post that (laughably) these highly inaccurate weapons were used for hunting, as has happened before.

How about instead of posting anecdotal "evidence" you post something that refutes the statistics in the source linked to the OP.
Is it because you can't?
Is it because all the data proves you wrong?

How about instead of worrying about what people do in other countries and trying to appear Intellectually 'superior' you put your superior intellect into cleaning up the mess in your OWN country.

I don't need, and will not accept 'you' telling me what to do.

originally posted by: nullafides

Am I to take it you live in the UK? From my first hand knowledge of anti-gun societies like the UK, you are raised to believe that guns are bad. They do bad things.

Nobody is raised to believe "guns are bad" and there is no campaign or propaganda here telling people that.
Common sense, decency, morality and conscience are the reasons why people think guns are unnecessary in a civilised and peaceful modern society.

This debate has been had so, so many times on ATS.

I started a thread 5 years ago asking "guns or no guns" after there had been shootings in the UK and USA and it was an interesting debate... we came to the conclusion that American's (mostly) liked guns and believed they were necessary in the USA... and that those in the UK thought the exact opposite.... guns lead to violence and the statistics backed this up.

You're much more likely, about 4 times in fact, to die or be injured by a gun if you own a gun.

It is a thoroughly pointless exercise to have a debate or a back and forth every few weeks on ATS.

The outcome will always be the same.

US loves their guns and the UK doesn't want or need them.

Of course there are a plenty of Anti-Gun folks in the US and there are plenty of decent and respectable gun owners in the UK who go Clay Pigeon shooting or use rifle ranges or go shooting game.

Two different countries and two different sets of ideals and views on life.

Like a few other posters have said....why do you care? Your country has banned them. The argument is moot and way overplayed. Guns will never be banned completely, and if tried, I will be in line with all the other legal gun owners fighting for my rights to carry.

There are plenty of stats on both sides of the argument to prove a point. I personally could care less about stats. I am more likely to die from any number of other things than I am a gun, yet I still do those other things.

Why is it that there are so many anti-gun followers anyways? Do they feel unsafe with people who have been well vetted before owning one, or do they feel unsafe from criminals who obtain them illegally?

Either way, the odds of anyone being killed by a gun are VERY slim the world over.

I would worry more about mental health in the community than guns....but hey, who cares how crazies kill as long as guns are not involved right?

What I really want to know is this : Why do the folks in countries where guns are banned, keep putting up threads about guns in the U.S? Maybe because they know there is a large group here that is anti gun and it'll get them some stars and flags?
Maybe just to start an argument about something that has not and will not, ever effect them?
Isn't there a word for that?

a reply to: budski

Your links?

Citing sources?

Ah, no, it's just your opinion.

Smooth bore can be used to hunt quite well as a bow depending upon the range of the intended game you are hunting.

Next, you'll be claiming that bows were invented only to kill humans also.

Shaking my head here.

There has only been really one type of weapon invented by humans who's sole purpose was for killing other humans:

Long edged weapons (swords).

Ranged weapons have always been used for hunting: Spears, bows, and yes, guns.

You don't go out hunting elk using a sword.

In ancient times, many governments proclaimed that the commoner was not allowed to have a sword. A bow on the other hand was just fine.

A gun is a tool. And like any tool it can be abused or used in the wrong way.

I could kill someone with a plastic butter knife. I could easily do it with a toothbrush.

What really makes me shake my head is how concerned people are that Americans own guns.

There are MUCH bigger concerns in the world.

The danger of people playing with data and drawing statistical correlations without any statistics credentials... There is nothing in that data that provides a cause and effect between gun ownership and violence. If you lived in an extremely peaceful place with virtually no violent crime how inclined would you be to own a gun? On the other hand, if you lived in an extremely violent place with high violent crime, rapes, kidnappings, how inclined would you be to own a gun? Now if we surveyed those two locations we would (wrongly) conclude that violence correlates with gun ownership. When in fact it is violence that drives gun ownership --- an entirely different thing. I've been over the cited data. If you have the statistical chops you'll find some very interesting things that might destabilize your soapbox a bit.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: Mianeye
And as soon as someone post "negative" things about guns, people starts comparing to other deadly things as a response.

Worst argument ever....

Move along, other deadly things exist... So end of discussion...

Even though those things are constantly updated to be more safe, like car crashes, where people survive for simple things as seatbelts, airbags, road safety like guardrails or speed limits, and traffic lights.

When it comes to guns...."Don't touch it, we are responsible gun owners"..."We don't need safety"..."Nothing ever happened where i live"...."Everyone should be allowed to own guns, because it's our right, according to 2'nd amendment"..

The problem as it stands now in the US, is unfixable, cause of stubbornness...

Oh, well...

I don't think those stats are meant to shut down the gun debate, just to put it in perspective. Which I think is something this debate sorely needs. It seems that most of the time those that are "anti-gun" seem to drastically overstate(or use sources that overstate) the severity of the situation.

My own position is pretty clear.
More guns = more gun deaths, and the evidence to support that is also very clear.
However, you are right that (in the US) the debate needs perspective, instead the NRA and gun lobby rely on scare tactics, spurious evidence (hence the name of the thread) and talks about rights and freedoms.
Now I could accept the argument about rights and freedoms if so many hadn't already been taken away with nary a whisper from gun advocates.
Of course the usual bullplop is about defending themself from a "Tyrannical" government, but the US has had various forms of tyranny for many years, and no one said jack.
I'd hazard a guess that many of the "cold dead hands" advocates would surrender their weapons pretty quickly when faced with armed troops on their doorstep.
Gun ownership is a false dichotomy: it doesn't keep anyone safe, there is no "good guy with a gun", it is far more likely to be used in a domestic dispute, and it has little to no defensive value that is statistically significant.

The US governments over the years have done a very good job of keeping people frightened, because they are easier to control when in that state.

originally posted by: jtma508
The danger of people playing with data and drawing statistical correlations without any statistics credentials... There is nothing in that data that provides a cause and effect between gun ownership and violence. If you lived in an extremely peaceful place with virtually no violent crime how inclined would you be to own a gun? On the other hand, if you lived in an extremely violent place with high violent crime, rapes, kidnappings, how inclined would you be to own a gun? Now if we surveyed those two locations we would (wrongly) conclude that violence correlates with gun ownership. When in fact it is violence that drives gun ownership --- an entirely different thing. I've been over the cited data. If you have the statistical chops you'll find some very interesting things that might destabilize your soapbox a bit.

So the FBI data is wrong?
Best drop them a line and give them the benefit of your wisdom.

a reply to: eriktheawful

I would say bombs fit in the category of just there to kill humans as well......ban bombs now!

originally posted by: butcherguy

People want their nanny government to ban things because they fear them.

Guns are your new nannies. Without them you would feel lost.

Because surely it's either all-gun state or nanny state, right? God forbid that we consider anything in between these extremes.

originally posted by: Mianeye

The problem as it stands now in the US, is unfixable, cause of stubbornness...

Oh, well...

Does that mean you will move on to something you CAN do something about?

I know its 'hip' to be anti gun, but it isn't something that is going to happen in America without a war.

originally posted by: budski

Of course the usual bullplop is about defending themself from a "Tyrannical" government, but the US has had various forms of tyranny for many years, and no one said jack.

Yea they call that responsible gun ownership.
You know, not shooting someone for every slight or wrong done to you?
You should be happy about that I would think.